Minutes of University Council
2:30 p.m., Thursday, April 18, 2013
Neatby-Timlin Theatre
Attendance: J. Kalra (Chair). See appendix A for listing of members in attendance.
The chair called the meeting to order at 2:32 p.m., observing that quorum had been attained.
Tribute
Dr. Dennis Gorecki, Professor Emeritus and former Dean of the College of Pharmacy and Nutrition,
provided a memorial tribute to Professor Beverly Edward Allen, Assistant Professor of the College of
Pharmacy and Nutrition who passed away March 15, 2013 after a lengthy battle with cancer. A moment
of silence was recognized.
1.
Adoption of the agenda
BONHAM-SMITH/RODGERS: To adopt the agenda as circulated.
CARRIED
2.
Opening remarks
Dr. Kalra welcomed members, students, other guests and Elizabeth Williamson, the new University
Secretary. Council welcomed Ms. Williamson with applause.
Dr. Kalra reminded those present of the usual seating arrangements, media representatives were
asked not to participate in any debate or motions, and it was noted that the co-chairs of the two
TransformUS task forces and the president would be available for comments following the meeting.
The conduct of Council meetings was outlined, with Dr. Kalra noting that Council members have
first priority to speak. All attendees were asked to provide their names and whether they were
members of Council, prior to speaking.
Ms. Williamson advised Council that Dr. Jay Kalra had been elected by acclamation to the role of
chair of Council for a two-year term. She noted that this is the beginning of Dr. Kalra’s second term.
She thanked Dr. Kalra for operating Council both efficiently and effectively and looked forward to
the same over the next two years. Council joined Ms. Williamson in applauding Dr. Kalra.
3.
Minutes of the meeting of March 21, 2013
D’EON/DALAI: That the Council minutes of March 21, 2013 be approved as circulated.
CARRIED
4.
Business from the minutes
No business was identified as arising from the minutes.
5.
Report of the Provost
The chair advised that he had received regrets from Dr. Brett Fairbairn, Provost and Vice-President,
Academic, but that his report was included in the materials and that Vice-Provost, Faculty Relations,
Dr. Jim Germida was at the meeting and would answer any questions. There were no questions or
comments.
6.
Student societies
6.1
Report from the USSU
Mr. Jared Brown, President of the University of Saskatchewan Students’ Union (USSU),
presented a verbal report. He noted that he was unable to attend the last Council meeting
because he had gone to Regina for budget day, and chose not to return due to inclement
weather.
Mr. Brown provided an overview of what the USSU has done over the course of the year,
including:
- Implemented internal evaluations for the student executive members twice a year, rather
than once at the end of their term as done previously, to allow the executive to learn and
improve their performance.
- Participated in a Summer UPass referendum which students will be able to utilize going
forward
- Executive members attended conferences in Montreal and Vancouver;
- Began conversations internally to entertain moving to a pass/fail system in nonprofessional colleges
- Passed motions at the USSU annual general meeting to affirm the USSU’s autonomy as a
separate organization from the university.
- Members of student councils have taken on additional responsibilities, including being
members of this body and having a larger relationship within their student societies.
Alexandria Werenka, USSU Vice-President Student Affairs informed Council of a number of
events hosted by the USSU in 2013, some of which included: Let’s Do Vocal; various events
focused on a communal atmosphere for students;; the display of student art work in Place Riel;
Aboriginal Achievement Week; lobbied to have students on the Transform US task forces; and
implemented a student undergraduate symposium, showcasing undergraduate student research
in the Place Riel Tunnel. She noted that the Gordon Oakes Red Bear Student Centre has had
positive progression to date.
Mr. Brown noted that he was graduating this year. He commended the team effort of the
USSU and expressed that he thought it had been a successful year. Looking into the future, he
indicated hewas thrilled with the four executive members who are incoming. In closing, he
introduced Jenna Moellenbeck, Vice-President Operations and Finance and Max FineDay,
USSU President Elect.
The chair thanked the leadership of the USSU and Council applauded their performance.
6.2
Report from the GSA
Mr. Ehimai Ohiozebau, president of the Graduate Students’ Association, presented the report
to Council. He commended Dr. Kalra for his role as Council Chair, and thanked the USSU for
a good working relationship and collegiality, especially with Jared Brown.
Mr. Ohiozebau provided the GSA’s mission statement:
- Ensure graduate students have access to quality services that support their academic
success
- Advocate for the unique needs and concerns of graduate students on and off campus
- Build a cohesive graduate student community
He illustrated the GSA’s governance structure and noted that he was both pleased and blessed
to be president of this association. He informed Council that the GSA executive held a retreat
in May 2012 to determine the 2012/13 focus of the association. The GSA determined that its
focus would be on: services, campaigns, events, student representation, and Aboriginal liaison.
The focus on campaigns included: review of graduate students’ funding; review of university
residence policies and procedures, and inclusion of graduates with advanced degrees in the
Saskatchewan Graduate Retention Program. Mr. Ohiozebau noted that the GSA has had a
good working relationship with university administration and most of these campaigns have
been well-received.
Mr. Ohiozebau commented on the GSA’s involvement in academic/research integrity issues,
noting that there were 18 complaints and it took approximately 20 hours per month to
represent each student on these issues. He also noted the GSA’s representation on Council and
Senate committees, as well as several search committees. Mr. Ohiozebau advised that the
GSA Council was reorganized, and he noted the external events attended by members of the
GSA.
Regarding services and events, Mr. Ohiozebau listed those that had improved over the past
year including: workshops and seminars; an increase in bursaries from $20,000 to $40,000;
orientation; health and dental plans; GSA Commons; and the GSA handbook. The services
and events begun this year included; a Halloween Party; referendum and negotiations with
Saskatoon Transit for an annual U-Pass for 2013/14; Childcare Co-op; and the first annual
GSA Awards Gala.
The involvement of GSA members in their general elections and orientation was illustrated,
showing a significant improvement in both. Mr. Ohiozebau advised that the GSA executive
plan to have a retreat again in May, and will report back to Council on their focus for 2013/14.
He thanked the people he worked with, the president for her support, members of senior
management, deans of colleges, and the chair of council. He also thanked Dr. Paul Jones, his
advisor, for sharing him with the university community.
The chair thanked Mr. Ohiozebau, and congratulated him on his election as GSA president for
2013/14. Council applauded Mr. Ohiozebau.
7.
Report of the President
President Busch-Vishniac noted that it has been a pleasure to work both with the USSU and GSA
this year and commented that her faith in our future is restored when working with both of these
bodies.
The president introduced Victoria Cowan, 3rd year English Honours Student to Council advising that
Ms. Cowan was the first Saskatchewan student to receive a 3M National Student Fellowship. This is
the second year they are given out, with only 10 given each year. They are awarded to honours
students who have demonstrated qualities of leadership. The president listed the voluntary
organizations with which Ms. Cowan has had extensive involvement, noting that she has been a
leader on and off campus through her volunteerism as a peer mentor with the University Learning
Centre, as a teacher-intern with Inspired Minds, and as a volunteer with the Otesha Project, an
environmental sustainability and youth empowerment organization. Council was informed that Ms.
Cowan had also received the USSU’s Vera Pezer Award for student enhancement. The president
congratulated Ms. Cowan, noting that further greatness was expected from her.
The president provided comments on TransformUS, advising that it is a presidential initiative to
review all of the university’s academic programs and services to make sure our resources match our
priorities and goals. She addressed the number of rumours that have spread regarding administration
having preconceived ideas of what programs or services might be eliminated and denied that there
was any truth in these rumours. She noted that the task forces will make decisions based on criteria
and weightings and advised members to dismiss any such rumours.
The president also reported that she had heard the concern that a lot of work will occur over the
summer. She noted that TransformUS will take place over the full year, and everyone was invited to
make comments. Council was advised that the task forces could not take time off during the summer
as this is the time when many of our employees have more time to provide their comments. Council
was reminded that even after the task force reports are released, the normal governance procedures
will be followed regarding any recommendations to reduce programs.
The president provided an apology to members of Council, advising that in her letter of January 11,
2013 to the university community she stated that once the criteria was tentatively developed by the
task forces it would be shared to the university community for comment and also go to Council for
endorsement. Upon reflection, she expressed that she realized this approach was problematic. The
two most important reasons being: thoughts and comments have been invited from the entire
community and to ask Council for endorsement would suggest that the thoughts of others are less
valued; and more importantly, if Council endorses the criteria then what ends up in the fifth quintile
of programs to be phased out could present a problem as Council looks at each program
individually. The president advised that she did not want Council to tie its own hands and wanted
Council to follow its normal processes, therefore she was not asking for endorsement of the criteria
from Council.
8.
TransformUS: Update and request for feedback
The chair introduced the co-chairs of the TransformUS task forces, Beth Bilson and Lisa Kalynchuk
for the academic program transformation task force (APT task force) and Kevin Schneider and Bob
Tyler for the support service transformation task force (SST task force).
Dr. Tyler provided a summary of the work conducted by the SST task force to date. He advised that
each task force attended workshops in March assisted by Mr. Larry Goldstein to initiate the process.
Both task forces have met several times since and plan to continue to meet over the summer. Both
task forces are at the stage of developing templates of the self-study documents that will go out.
This will be the primary tool used to obtain information although other sources will also be used.
The proposed criteria and weightings were developed at the initial workshop and have been
circulated to the university community seeking comments by noon on April 22nd. The task forces
will review the comments received and finalize the criteria and weightings.
Dr. Tyler advised that the SST task force is working on a draft template and plans to complete the
preliminary version in May. It will then try a sample template on three programs/functional areas
and adjust as necessary after that. The task force hopes to have a final template ready early in June
to be circulated for completion. The SST task force would like to have the completed templates back
by early August.
Dr. Tyler noted that the task force has met a number of times. This has resulted in more work for the
co-chairs than expected. The co-chairs have attended meetings with the Deans’ Council, a town hall
for students and University Council. There have been a few problems with the TransformUS
website which have now been fixed. The SST task force has identified approximately 200 functional
services. The task force needs to determine what information it needs to then identify its data
requirements.
Dr. Bilson noted that the APT task force has been following a similar process as the SST task force.
The APT task force is still working on the list of programs to be reviewed. There has been a
challenge in identifying the programs because although there is a definition of ‘program’ in the
university, the APT task force is using a broader definition, namely, “any activity in which the
university invests resources.”
Dr. Bilson advised that the APT task force co-chairs will post a weekly status update on the website.
The most recent posting addresses the timetable laid out. The APT task force, similar to the SST
task force, hopes to have a finalized template by mid-June for circulation and a deadline for
submission of completed templates of August 16. Dr. Bilson acknowledged this as a fairly
aggressive timetable. She advised that the primary concern is to allow the task force to review the
programs in a balanced way and with the time needed.
Dr. Schneider noted that in addition to the co-chairs there are 47 other dedicated and exceptional
individuals who are enthusiastic about the work of the task forces. This is a committee with a high
quorum of 75% required for meetings, and 75% majority vote for any decisions related to
categorization.
The Council Chair invited comments and questions for the TransformUS co-chairs.
A question was asked by a faculty member about the kinds of criteria and weightings that have been
presented for the APT task force. The criteria for revenue and other resources, and costs and other
expenses associated with the programs add up to 18%, whereas impact, justification and overall
essentiality add up to 14%. The concern is that the reduction of programs to numerical criteria
eliminates the judgment of the leap of intuition and possibility of future development, particularly
for the humanities and social sciences.
Dr. Bilson advised that with the number of programs both task forces have to review, they needed to
develop some type of criteria to compare the programs to each other. Both task forces recognize this
will involve the exercise of judgment on how the programs will align with the university’s stated
priorities. The task forces are using the weightings and criteria as starting points to compare
programs with each other, and there is room in the process to exercise judgment from a wide group
of people so it will not be merely a numbers game.
The faculty member posing the question noted that the university’s present areas of interest and
concern change every four years, with each new integrated plan. A danger is that programs may be
eliminated which may prove to be essential for the university’s next integrated plan..
Dr. Tyler commented that although prioritizations are important, they are recommendations for
others as it will still be the Council’s task to recommend what programs to eliminate. The task
forces are only making recommendations.
A student noted that the wording of the criteria was alarmingly ambiguous and asked how the task
force will define the importance to the university. The student noted that some criteria were clearer
than others, but a number were impossible to determine without direct input from the students, and
asked how the task forces planned to address the ambiguity and obtain information from students
who were underrepresented.
Dr. Tyler advised that the task forces will have each program/functional area tell us why they are
important to the university. He noted that quality may be more difficult in some respects, although
there are many measures of quality of support services at the university and more quantitative
information than might be realized. Students provide impact on quality every time they complete
course evaluations, so there is a lot of student input, and the task forces will look for more.
Dr. Kalynchuk advised that the APT task force was in the process of developing how it will measure
quality and the processes it will follow. The task force has been separated into working groups to
develop the template and it will be clear in the template what type of information is sought. She
advised that they want to be careful to not seek information so specific that it prevents people from
telling members why the program is important. She admitted that this is a difficult balance, and the
task force is trying to identify the information necessary to gather. Dr. Bilson noted that every
program may view success in different ways, so the task force is considering asking the people
responsible for programs to tell the task force what they think is a measure of success of their
program, and why the program is distinctive.
Dr. Tyler noted that there will be lots of “apples and oranges” comparisons but this will have to be
left to the people on the task force to work through, based on their experiences. Dr. Schneider
advised that on the support services side, it is clear there is ambiguity, which the templates will
assist to clarify. He noted that instruction will be given on how to compete the template, and the cochairs are hoping the task force members will be able to assist in helping the community provide
what the task force is looking for.
A concern was raised by a department head that written feedback does not elicit information to the
extent a forum like Council does, and about the total timeline for this process, both because of the
number of programs, but also due to timing. The task forces have been at work since March with a
deadline to present a report by November 30th, so the majority of that time is in the summer when
many people are away, and there is less opportunity for students to contribute. She also noted that
she was concerned about the criteria being loosely defined. She expressed that general discussions
provide a different type of environment for everyone, rather than isolated comments sent to the task
force without a dynamic process for improvement.
Dr. Kalynchuk noted that the co-chairs had talked to a number of groups on campus (i.e. Deans’
Council twice, department heads, student town hall), so information had been gathered in public
venues. She advised that there had also been other opportunities for discussions and others had
participated, and that this discussion at Council was also very good.
The department head commented that even though there was the desire to have everyone become
aware and participate, schedules and work responsibilities are such that it was difficult for a large
percentage of the university community to acquaint themselves with matters that concern them. She
recommended that this process be linked to the time allowed for the wider university community to
become acquainted with it and emphasized the importance of a timeframe that allows for broad
participation.
Dr. Bilson replied that co-chairs were very aware of the need to try to reach as many people as
possible. Although the APT task force had set a deadline of April 22 for comment on the draft
criteria and weightings, the website would remain open so that people could continue to acquaint
themselves with the development of the process. To recognize the more communal dimension,
public events and town halls will continue to be held at different steps in the process. She reminded
members that TransformUS is an important project, but is also part of a larger strategy. There are
timelines that are critical to the university to enable the university to respond to its financial
responsibilities. Dr. Bilson noted that timing may be an issue, but there are limitations in light of the
full trajectory of the budget process.
A faculty member advised that she was also concerned with timing and thought a definition of
program should come out before the criteria is finalized, so individuals could determine whether or
not they agreed with the program definition. She also raised a concern about the existence of the
quintiles as bins and that the university was in jeopardy of losing very good people who leave
because they see their program put into a negative bin.
Dr. Schneider reported that the SST task force was using Dickeson’s definition of program. The
SST program lists have been developed, and the SST task force is close to being able to post these
on the website and make them available for comment and review to get the right sense of what these
support services are. Regarding the binning point, he commented the process will result in the
categorization of programs, but many programs will be unaffected.
Dr. Bilson advised that the co-chairs do not underestimate the anxiety this initiative is causing. The
task force members are committed to the process to put things in terms of higher and lower priorities
and give the university community the opportunity to make choices given the financial resources
available.
A graduate student commented that he was alarmed by the lack of discussion around bigger issues,
such as the acceptance of having this process. He noted that at the town hall meeting yesterday it
was said that these activities are necessary due to underfunding from the province; however, from
the president’s speech there was no criticism that the university is not getting as much money as
hoped. He expressed the view that the problem was being downloaded from administration to
faculty and students, and asked what type of lobbying and approach was being taken to represent the
university to convince the government that more funding is needed. The chair advised that the
president would speak to this question at the end of the task force item.
In response to a student’s question about the external timelines that the task forces were aligning
their timeline to, Professor Bilson advised that this is part of a larger sequence to come to terms with
financial concerns.
A faculty member commented that he thought the purely financial weightings were dangerously
low, given the desires of TransformUS, and he asked how the weightings of 18% and 21% were
determined. In response Dr. Bilson explained that the weightings were the result of a lot of
discussion by each task force at one-day workshops. She noted that the other part of it is that the
quintiles, which are the categories that the programs will be placed in, are actually organized by
financial characteristics because they will not put 20% of the number of programs in each quintile,
but rather 20% of the amount of the university budget that the programs occupy. The categorization
has a very powerful financial aspect, and the task forces’ concern was to give sufficient room to
other criteria, as they are confident the financial matters will be addressed.
There was a question about the specific dates envisioned for general discussion on the process
between now and November. Dr. Kalynchuk advised that the co-chairs had not mapped out all of
their events, but they did plan to have a few town halls with the university community around midMay, once the draft templates are ready.
There was an observation that issues for one task force were not necessarily the same as the other
task force, and for efficiency perhaps it would be appropriate to divide these sets of discussions in
the future. Dr. Tyler thought that they would likely have the next town hall together, then hold
separate town halls for this reason. Dr. Schneider noted that it has been useful so far for the cochairs of both task forces to hear all of the comments. Dr. Kalynchuk commented that there is a
significant link between the interests of both task forces, as the support services are part of the
academic mission in some ways; however, she did think it is necessary to deal with them as separate
entities.
A member of Senate commented that at the town hall meeting on the previous day, they were told
about the gap between revenue and expenditures for the university. She observed that she was
seeing investment from government declining and investment from corporate and private sources
increasing. She asked how the desire for corporate investment was being evaluated, and how would
it affect the task forces. The chair advised that the president would answer this question. Dr. Tyler
also answered that the university’s funding from the province is not decreasing as we are receiving a
2% increase, but it is just not as much as we had budgeted for, so there is a growing gap between the
university’s revenues and expenses.
A Senate member noted that at the town hall there was also a question as to whether there was
representation of indigenous members on the task forces. Dr. Bilson replied that there are
indigenous members on the task force; she just did not know how many.
The chair invited the president to respond to the two outstanding questions.
In response to the question asking what the administration was doing in the area of government
relations in light of the fact of reduced government funding to the university, President BuschVishniac explained that universities in Saskatchewan and Manitoba had done well in provincial
budgets, but funding for advanced education is either static or declining in all other provinces. So
although the university is not receiving the funding it had hoped for, it is in no position to criticize
the government as the province has increased funding at the rate of inflation and is leading in the
country. She explained that administration is trying very hard to make sure it publicly thanks the
province for being much more generous to its universities than in other provinces, and efforts
continue to seek additional funding from the province.
Regarding the question about corporate dollars, Dr. Busch-Vishniac noted that if you look at
funding that comes to this campus for our operating budget, about 75% comes from government,
and about 1/10th of 1% comes from corporate sources. The amount of money received from
corporations for our operating budget is sufficiently low that it does not pose a problem.
President Busch-Vishniac thanked the co-chairs and all of the other members of the task forces and
those that participated in the discussion. She also thanked the staff of institutional planning and
assessment who support the task forces. In closing the president noted that it is important that
Council continue to have these types of discussion. The chair also thanked the co-chairs for their
participation.
9.
College of Medicine: Update for information
President Busch-Vishniac provided an update on the process, in the provost’s absence. She
explained that the faculty of medicine accepted a new vision for the College of Medicine in
November, and that a draft vision was approved by University Council in December with the
requirement that Council be updated in April and a plan for the implementation of the vision be
submitted by August. An update on progress being made by the College of Medicine had been
provided to Council in the written meeting materials.
The president noted that the college of medicine affects each and every unit on this campus. At the
General Academy Assembly meeting last week, the president provided information on our research
funding that illustrated if our medical college funding was at the same rate as our U15 peers, we
would be at the median of our peers for research funds. She stressed that it is important for everyone
that we keep on top of this process and are well informed.
Lou Qualtiere, acting Dean, College of Medicine and Martin Phillipson, vice-Provost, College of
Medicine organizational restructuring were asked to provide comments on the summary provided in
the materials.
Dr. Qualtiere advised that the report in the materials was illustrative of the work being done.
Through the work of many working groups, recommendations have been tabled for the Deans’
Advisory Committee (DAC) and DAC is currently waiting for the remaining reports from the other
working groups. The work of the working groups has to be finished by the middle of June and an
implementation plan needs to be developed by mid-August. Dr. Qualtiere explained this time is
needed to develop the implementation plan and meet expectations of this body by the fall.
Mr. Phillipson introduced Dr. Colum Smith, interim vice-Dean of research, College of Medicine,
and advised that Dr. Smith will release the research plan for the college in May. Mr. Phillipson
explained that the implementation plan will be made up of smaller plans which will be constituted
as chapters of the larger plan, and some will be circulated in advance. Mr. Phillipson explained that
what was agreed in December was a fundamental restructuring of the college. The college will look
very different in five to ten years, and beyond, because it has been agreed that the status quo is not
acceptable. A faculty meeting of the college has been called for June 26 to discuss progress.
There were no questions or comments.
10.
Planning and Priorities Committee
Dr . Bob Tyler, chair of the planning and priorities committee presented these reports to
Council.
10.1 Request for Decision: Name Change for Department of Languages and Linguistics
Dr. Tyler provided context and background for the decision, summarizing the approval and
consultation process that has been followed to date. He advised that the new name more
accurately reflects the teaching of the department and would provide the positive impact of
more visibility of what the department does.
TYLER/JAECK: That Council approve that the Department of Languages and
Linguistics be renamed the Department of Languages, Literatures, and Cultural Studies,
effective July 1, 2013.
CARRIED
10.2 Request for Decision: Establishment of PRISM (Proteomics Research in Interactions and
Structure of Macromolecules) as a Type A Centre in the College of Medicine
Dr. Tyler explained the intent is to take advantage of centres to bring together researchers
with common interests and that the PRISM centre will enhance the synergy among
researchers engaged in protein science research. The Planning and Priorities Committee
wanted to make sure the fit with the Saskatchewan Structural Sciences Centre and Canadian
Light Source, as they provide similar tools, so obtained letters of support from both centres.
The committee also asked whether it should be a Type A or Type B centre, and decided it
should be a Type A centre within the College of Medicine in light of the support from the
college. Dr. Tyler also noted the important linkage of PRISM with the Protein
Characterization and Crystallization Facility, which is also located in the College of
Medicine.
TYLER/KHANDELWAL: That Council approve the establishment of PRISM
(Proteomics Research in Interactions and Structure of Macromolecules) as a Type A
Centre in the College of Medicine, effective April 18, 2013.
CARRIED
11.
Governance Committee
Professor Louise Racine presented these items as a member of the governance committee.
11.1 Request for Decision: Additional term to terms of reference for all Council committees
Prof. Racine provided the rationale for the additional term and summarized the approval and
consultation process that had been followed. She explained that this additional term is for the
terms of reference for all of the council committees and will allow committees at their
discretion to designate representatives on various administrative and other committees where
deemed beneficial to the committee. Council committees are asked to report annually to
council of any representatives named to committees.
RACINE/HARRISON: That Council approve the additional term ‘designating
individuals to act as representatives of the committee on any other bodies, when
requested, where such representation is deemed by the committee to be beneficial’ to the
terms of reference for all Council committees.
CARRIED
11.2 Request for Decision: Disestablishment of the Teaching and Learning Committee and the
Academic Support Committee and establishment of the Teaching, Learning and Academic
Resources Committee
Prof. Racine provided the rationale for the disestablishment of the two committees and
creation of the new Teaching, Learning and Academic Resources Committee and noted the
consultation that had occurred. The new committee will result in more effective oversight of
the academic supports fundamental to the successful delivery of academic programs and
services, and will support the scholarship of teaching and learning, as articulated in the
Learning Charter and Third Integrated Plan.
RACINE/TYLER: That Council disestablish the Teaching and Learning Committee and
the Academic Support Committee, and in their place establish the Teaching, Learning
and Academic Resources Committee, with the proposed membership and terms of
reference as attached.
CARRIED
11.3 Notice of Motion: Statement on Recording of Council Meetings in Part One, Section III, 5 of
the Council Bylaws
Prof. Racine explained that the governance committee was asked to develop a statement
regarding use of audio and video recording at council meetings and the committee determined
that it should be included in the Council’s bylaws. The need for a statement on prohibiting
recordings of Council meetings was prompted by the accessibility of recording technology
and the need to protect the privacy of council members and allow them to participate freely in
discussions. She noted that it does not restrict streaming to off-site locations if Council
members are at those sites. Prof. Racine explained the consultation process followed.
The chair asked for any comments to be sent to Prof. Racine and Prof. Gord Zello, committee
chair, and that the motion will come to the next Council meeting for decision.
RACINE/TYLER: That Council approve the addition of the following statement to Part
One, Section III, 5 of the Council Bylaws: “Attendees at Council meetings are expected
to refrain from audio or video recording of the proceedings and to respect the rulings of
the chair.”
12.
Nominations Committee
12.1 Request for Decision: Nominations for Search and Review Committees
Professor Ed Krol, member of the nominations committee, presented this report to Council.
The chair called three times for additional nominations from the floor. There being no further
nominations the motions were put to Council.
KROL/MEDA: That Council approve the following nominations to Search and Review
Committees:
Search Committee for Dean of Education
Trevor Crowe, Associate Dean, College of Graduate Studies and Research
Search Committee for Dean of Pharmacy and Nutrition:
Louise Humbert, Associate Dean, College of Kinesiology
Review Committee for Dean of Agriculture and Bioresources:
Don Bergstrom, Associate Dean, College of Engineering
CARRIED
14.
Research, Scholarly and Artistic Work Committee
14.1 Report for Information: Principles and Strategies for Research Success
Professor Stephen Urquhart, chair of the research, scholarly and artistic work committee presented
the report on Principles and Strategies for Research Success. He noted that the report arises from
discussions at the committee over the past two years on how to improve our research funding above
the national average for medical-doctoral universities. This is a challenging goal and the metrics are
sobering. Currently the university is at11th place out of the U15 for total sponsored research funding
in Canada and ranks at a similar level in terms of research funding per full time faculty. To move
from 11th to 9th would require a difference of 40% of our current research funding. This matter falls
within Council’s responsibility to provide foresight and direction. The report provides a set of
principles and recommended strategies for Council’s consideration on how our research goal should
be advanced. Dr. Urquhart noted that many thoughts of the committee parallel the thoughts of
administration in this regard.
The chair invited comments on the report be provided to Dr. Urquhart and the research, scholarly
and artistic work committee.
15.
Other business
No other business was identified as arising from the minutes.
16.
Question period
A question was directed to the provost’s report, asking about the positions that had been eliminated by
late March and early April, how that had gone, and how many reduced positions had been achieved
through attrition.
In the absence of the provost, the president responded advising that the first phase of workforce planning
involved the removal of 50 positions, 40 of which were full and 10 vacant. Another 50 positions were
being eliminated, most of which are occupied, although recalling from memory, the president thought 12
positions were vacant. President Busch-Vishniac explained that they had intentionally decided to do this
slowly to provide attention to each individual and provide them with support, rather than conduct mass
terminations. She noted that it has been a difficult and painful process for everyone.
17.
Adjournment
PARKINSON/MICHELMANN: That the meeting be adjourned at 4:38 p.m
CARRIED
Next meeting – 2:30 pm, May 16, 2013